Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Youtube Communications Electronic Frontier Foundation Google The Internet Politics

YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip 622

Posted by Soulskill
from the people-will-be-mad-whatever-you-decide dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Google officials have rejected the notion of removing a video that depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. Google says the video does not violate YouTube's policies, but they did restrict viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country. Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle faced by the company, and others like it, to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events. 'This video – which is widely available on the Web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,' Google said in a statement. 'However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.' Underscoring Google's quandary, some digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video. Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says given Google' s strong track record of protecting free speech, she was surprised the company gave in to pressure to selectively block the video. 'It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint,' says Galperin. 'I'm not sure they did the right thing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Great Response... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2012 @03:43PM (#41339585)

    No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

    The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE [youtube.com]

    or the full version (82 mins):
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa [c-spanvideo.org]

  • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by toriver (11308) on Friday September 14, 2012 @03:52PM (#41339699)

    Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?

    (Child brides were rather common in the Christian Middle ages as well; the concepts of pedophilia and age of consent are relatively modern and secular, largely based on women's rights campaigners. In many religions children - in particular girls - are almost treated as property. Remember the Old Testament: "But all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:18)

  • by Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:04PM (#41339867)
    Nor should they. There is freedom of speech in the US, and Google is a US based company. I have little sympathy for those "revolting" in other countries over stuff like this. Muslims who kill because their beliefs are mocked by others are horrible. Catholics who bomb abortion clinics and kill workers there are horrible. Germans who supported ethnic cleansing back in the day were/are horrible. In short, once you start to affect other people with violence, you turn horrible.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:30PM (#41340293) Homepage Journal

    they are specifically angry about this video. they say, not me

    why are you making excuses for this kind of behavior?

    this is where you reply to me and continue to insert your worldview into the motivations of other people who are clearly not rioting because of the reasons you think they are

    you are just as blind as they are

  • upside-down (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:34PM (#41340337) Homepage Journal

    So, insulting violent religious fanatics and inciting riots is fine, but having a 50 year-old record playing in the background of a video of your dog running around the backyard is completely outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.

    And using the words "super" and "bowl" together will earn you permanent banishment.

    Fucking world...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:50PM (#41340557)

    Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.

    Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

  • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:10PM (#41340845)

    It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical

    Except that Christianity doesn't expressly forbid depictions of jesus etc. Muslims don't have free speech, it's a foreign concept to them. It was, for a long time, a foreign concept to the christian world too after all, the Christian, Asian Orthodox and Catholic and protestant churches (see what I did there, I implied eastern orthodox as the real christians not anyone else, you didn't go burning an embassy down over it?) all disagree over who's interpretation is right. But that's kind of the point. By steel and gunpowder they got themselves to the point of simply disagreeing, and not making any more of a fuss over it. Part of that of course comes from the balance in power between the state and religion, and the eternal conflict between the Catholic church particularly as a state and as a religion.

    Just about everything one christian denomination stands for one of the others disagrees with, about the only thing they agree on are that a god exists and that jesus is his son, and none of them are too fond of people pointing that out as being obvious nonsense. But beyond that, they've long since fought their wars and revolutions, inquisitions and witch hunts over it and it's just not worth it. Free speech isn't some grand ideal about why it's great to hear everyone's opinion, it's a grand ideal because I know I don't have to listen to other people's opinions. The new islamic movements are going to find it very hard to get anything done if they want to waste a week every time someone of no importance says something they don't like, but that will take some growing pains because for years they've been like sheltered children by their authoritarian states, and they just discovered that the world has porn and gays and they don't like that. Eventually they'll figure out that there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of offensive things, and most of the time no one cares, and making a fuss over it just gives attention to people who don't deserve it.

    Granted, it may well be that we need to extend the principles of Augsburg (1555) and Westphalia (1648), importantly 'Cuius regio, eius religio' through the UN. Your state can set its own damn rules about religion but keep your nose out of anyone elses so to speak. That would require leaders in muslim states to go along with it, and they're not there yet, or at least, not all of them, but they're getting there.

  • Re:Great Response... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tokencode (1952944) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:36PM (#41341163)
    It shoul not be restricted anywhere. f they cannot handle watching it, let them freak out. If they kill someone or destroy something in the process, eliminate those who cause problems. Restricting information simply because a group of people are not intellectually mature enough to let others voice their opinion no matter how offensive it is, do not deserve to share this planet with the rest of us.
  • by drkim (1559875) on Friday September 14, 2012 @08:32PM (#41342697)

    "Just let them kill each other"

    I have more humane proposal.

    We give out tons of aid money: (all amounts USD$ for 2010)
    Afghanistan = $11,446,800,000
    Pakistan = $2,853,500,000
    Iraq = $2,087,900,000
    Egypt = $1,698,900,000
    Sudan = $975,900,000
    Gaza = $693,100,000

    Why don't we just say:
    Every time you kill an American, we take $80 million of your aid money, and give it to Israel.
    Every time you attack an embassy: $200 million
    Every time you issue a fatwa (on some cartoonist or author, or filmmaker, etc.): $10 million ...and so on.

    Any time the violence stops, that aid level is restored the next year.

    If you just cut off all their aid, they have no incentive to do anything.
    This way, they have incremental rewards to act civilized.

  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Friday September 14, 2012 @08:59PM (#41342871) Journal
  • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Friday September 14, 2012 @11:47PM (#41343753)

    Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

    Wikipedia pointed out a subtlety about that scene

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Religious_satire_and_blasphemy_accusations [wikipedia.org]

    The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faith. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance ("I think he said, 'blessed are the cheese makers'"). Importantly, he is distinct from the character of Brian, which is also evident in the scene where an annoying and ungrateful ex-leper pesters Brian for money, while moaning that since Jesus cured him, he has lost his source of income in the begging trade (referring to Jesus as a "bloody do-gooder").

    So in Life of Brian the comedy comes from idiots not understanding the message of peace and tolerance.

    Then again of course, Jesus discouraged stoning - "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Unlike Mohammed

    http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/082.sbt.html#008.082.809 [iupui.edu]

    Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

    A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

    "I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". How chilling is that?

    And it's clear that if Muhammad hadn't have been there the couple would have got a token punishment of face blackening, not be killed horribly.

    In fact if you don't think either Jesus or Muhammad were divine these sorts of differences in their morality make it pretty clear that Jesus as a historical figure is owed a more respectful portrayal than Muhammad. Muhammad not only had sex slaves, he actually enslaved them himself after killing their husbands.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayhana [wikipedia.org]

    Rayhana was originally a member of the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were defeated by the armies of Muhammad in the Siege of the Banu Qurayza neighborhood, Rayhana was among those enslaved, while the men were executed for treason.

    According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took her as a maiden slave and offered her the status of becoming his wife if she accepted Islam, but she refused. According to his account, even though Rayhana is said to have later converted to Islam, she died as a slave.[1] According to Marco SchÃller, Rayhana either became the Prophet's concubine or, was married to him and later divorced

  • by marcello_dl (667940) on Saturday September 15, 2012 @04:15AM (#41344791) Homepage Journal

    Actually you can prove that no proof can be given. That's why the accent was put on faith some thousand years ago. Now, you can think such subtlety comes from divinely inspired people, or smart ones. And then you can go on analyzing the motives behind each scenario. But what irks me is that philosophy 101 matters somehow escape both believers and unbelievers in the media. Which makes me conclude that media are trolling us.

    It's easy to be a good religious follower, It's easy to be a good atheist, just remember life it is always under Your responsibility and whoever aims to choose for you is not helping you.

  • by tbird81 (946205) on Saturday September 15, 2012 @07:34AM (#41345427)

    I'm not sure how many times people will have to tell you this, but atheists believe in what there is evidence for. If there was any evidence of a god, then I'd believe in him. I believe in electromagnetic radiation, I'm sure we don't understand it completely (i.e. what it's 'made' of, we know a lot about how it works), but there's evidence for it.

    I even give others the benefit of the doubt. There's not that much evidence that Jesus existed, but I give Christians the benefit of the doubt, and feel he may have existed.

    There is absolutely zero evidence that gods exists. Nothing. Nothing at all that even suggests this. Most of the data about what God is meant to do (save lives, help people win reality TV shows, cure the sick, watch us masturbate, make the world in 6 days) indicates that he doesn't do any of these things. So what's the fucking point in believing in a god that does absolutely nothing?! And when looked at objectively doesn't even exist!?

    Take the blinders off. Life will be a lot better if you stopped believing in that nasty iron-age fairy tale. And that very least it means you'll be able to stop sounding like an idiot trying to justify DNA similarities, fossils, cosmic background radiation, astronomy, etc, etc etc.

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...